Opinion Mark Blake

[JUBJUB]

Mate, he was a bloke who played with injuries that any of us wouldn't get out of bed to go to work with, a 1/4 fit King is still better than a fully-fit Blake.

Crackers is back.Long time no see.Great game by Kingy on the weekend.He really fixed up Lade and Bogan.Oh wait,he's broken down again

 

[Woof Dog]

Crackers is back.Long time no see.Great game by Kingy on the weekend.He really fixed up Lade and Bogan.Oh wait,he's broken down again

He didn't play, and yet he put in a better performance than Blake over the last two weeks...

 

[Tay29]

Yeah, we clearly were:

M Blake: 26 Hitouts
S King: 25 Hitouts

So not only did Blake beat King in hitouts, he also had to contend with two experienced (albiet pretty rubbish) second ruckmen in Kozi and Blake. Who did they have to face off with? Trent West, who had the grand total of two hitouts and two games to his name.

Woop-dee-doo he won hitouts by 1 but they mean jack if it's not a hitout to advantage. While I can't find stats for that I remember thinking at the game that King was tapping a lot better. St Kilda also roved Blake's taps better than our own guys. But that is only my opinion. We only lost the hitouts for that game by 6 and yet the below stat obviously backs up my claim;

Clearances
St Kilda: 38
Geelong: 23

You would think that if Blake beat King in hitouts, then our clearances would be a lot closer don't you think?
Here's some more stats for you;

General Stats
King: 17 (7 kicks, 10 handballs), 3 marks, 6 clearances, 4 1%ers, 2 errors
Blake: 13 (3 kicks, 10 handballs), 2 marks, 2 clearances, 1 1%ers, 6 errors

Courtesy of; http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/game_stats?mid=2008026

I even left the Free Kicks out of it but they don't flatter Blake either.

How about you take your rose coloured glasses off? Blake was beaten that day. It's a fact in all stats except for the hitouts which he won by one.

Again...this simply shows the ridiculous standards Blake is being held to. Jolly is in his absolute prime, has 126 games under his belt and is a premiership ruckman. Blake has the grand total of 39 games and still averages more possessions and hitouts than Jolly - and while Jolly beat him around the ground, Blake matched him in the ruck.

Again, wtf did you expect?

Oh, I don't know, how about that he is at least competitive. I don't expect him to win each week. In fact I don't expect him to beat the #1 ruck of every other team in this competition at all. But he is less competitive more often than he is.

Neither is Blake, FFS. There's this bloke called Brad Ottens, remember? The fact that Blake is at least matching most No 1 rucks for hitouts and getting some useful possessions (and goals) around the ground is a victory for us.

Errr... No he's not. That's the argument. He's losing each week and most often than not, badly and that is what most of us here are concerned about. He's not competitive enough. He may get first hands to the ball(currently ranked 5th in total hitouts) but he's not doing a lot with those hitouts. Geelong ranks 9th in clearances.

You would suspect Blake is being ordered to sit his arse at CHB when they're on the rebound, to prevent them going through the corridor. I agree he needs to work on his skills around the ground...but he's already made huge strides from last year, when he looked like Bamby taking his first steps every time he got the ball.

Mate, go back and look at the vision from the last two weeks. There were several instances of Geelong having a shot for goal from a mark or free kick. Jolly and Sandilands are on the goaline, where the hell was Blake? There was easily enough time for him to be down there if they were. These are his opponents taking uncontested marks in our goal square. Do you expect Mooney or Hawkins to beat their man and then the ruckman? It might be Bomber's gameplan not to send him into the forward 50 and if it is, then it's a big mistake.

 

[forrrestGump]

Mate, he was a bloke who played with injuries that any of us wouldn't get out of bed to go to work with, a 1/4 fit King is still better than a fully-fit Blake.

totally agree
he puts his body in

as for blake he is nowhere near it, and we should have let st kilda pay him 400k or whatever,

mummy will be the next cox

 

[krisholio14]

He didn't play, and yet he put in a better performance than Blake over the last two weeks...

Woop-dee-doo he won hitouts by 1 but they mean jack if it's not a hitout to advantage. While I can't find stats for that I remember thinking at the game that King was tapping a lot better. St Kilda also roved Blake's taps better than our own guys. But that is only my opinion. We only lost the hitouts for that game by 6 and yet the below stat obviously backs up my claim;

Clearances
St Kilda: 38
Geelong: 23

You would think that if Blake beat King in hitouts, then our clearances would be a lot closer don't you think?
Here's some more stats for you;

General Stats
King: 17 (7 kicks, 10 handballs), 3 marks, 6 clearances, 4 1%ers, 2 errors
Blake: 13 (3 kicks, 10 handballs), 2 marks, 2 clearances, 1 1%ers, 6 errors

Courtesy of; http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/game_stats?mid=2008026

I even left the Free Kicks out of it but they don't flatter Blake either.

How about you take your rose coloured glasses off? Blake was beaten that day. It's a fact in all stats except for the hitouts which he won by one.



Oh, I don't know, how about that he is at least competitive. I don't expect him to win each week. In fact I don't expect him to beat the #1 ruck of every other team in this competition at all. But he is less competitive more often than he is.



Errr... No he's not. That's the argument. He's losing each week and most often than not, badly and that is what most of us here are concerned about. He's not competitive enough. He may get first hands to the ball(currently ranked 5th in total hitouts) but he's not doing a lot with those hitouts. Geelong ranks 9th in clearances.



Mate, go back and look at the vision from the last two weeks. There were several instances of Geelong having a shot for goal from a mark or free kick. Jolly and Sandilands are on the goaline, where the hell was Blake? There was easily enough time for him to be down there if they were. These are his opponents taking uncontested marks in our goal square. Do you expect Mooney or Hawkins to beat their man and then the ruckman? It might be Bomber's gameplan not to send him into the forward 50 and if it is, then it's a big mistake.

totally agree
he puts his body in

as for blake he is nowhere near it, and we should have let st kilda pay him 400k or whatever,

mummy will be the next cox

I wonder what rock you folk will be hiding under when Blakey wins the first of his B&F's in the next 3 or 4 years.

 

[Tay29]

I wonder what rock you folk will be hiding under when Blakey wins the first of his B&F's in the next 3 or 4 years.

I won't hide under any rock. I will be more than happy to say I was wrong if I am. But as I see it, with all the improvement he could possibly muster, he will will never be a great #1 ruck. His main role will be as a serviceable #2 ruck. Injuries to other ruckmen will be his best friend. And if you think he'll ever win a B&F then you're only showing your man love for him.

 

[forrrestGump]

I wonder what rock you folk will be hiding under when Blakey wins the first of his B&F's in the next 3 or 4 years.

which vfl team will he be playing at the time

ps, mummy will be far superior to the 2nd string ruckman

(by the way not too many 2nd string ruckmen win a b&f, let alone in a squad with ablett, bartel, corey, selwood, hawkins playing)

when he gets beaten by the lions will you still support this hack

 

[forrrestGump]

I won't hide under any rock. I will be more than happy to say I was wrong if I am. But as I see it, with all the improvement he could possibly muster, he will will never be a great #1 ruck. His main role will be as a serviceable #2 ruck. Injuries to other ruckmen will be his best friend. And if you think he'll ever win a B&F then you're only showing your man love for him.

happy to take any bets on at 10 to 1 re him winning a B&F

and if the blake lovers have faith, this should be an easy return for them

 

[cat in sydney]

We only lost the hitouts for that game by 6 and yet the below stat obviously backs up my claim;

Clearances
St Kilda: 38
Geelong: 23

You would think that if Blake beat King in hitouts, then our clearances would be a lot closer don't you think?

As yet I'm still unconvinced about Blake (there are pros and cons), but I couldn't let this ripper past.

That is an absolutely pathetic argument. See the Freo game for the perfect example...

Fremantle = 48 hitouts, 32 clearances
Geelong = 23 hitouts, 36 clearances

If you go by the percentage of how many hitouts are to advantage and lead to clearances, then Sandilands had one of the worst games by a ruckman ever!!

There is only a minor correlation between number of hitouts and number of clearances, as seen by the discrepancy above. Don't blame Blake for the lack of clearances we had against the Saints. He held his own against King, but our onballers got smashed in close.

 

[martyk]

As yet I'm still unconvinced about Blake (there are pros and cons), but I couldn't let this ripper past.

That is an absolutely pathetic argument. See the Freo game for the perfect example...

Fremantle = 48 hitouts, 32 clearances
Geelong = 23 hitouts, 36 clearances

If you go by the percentage of how many hitouts are to advantage and lead to clearances, then Sandilands had one of the worst games by a ruckman ever!!

There is only a minor correlation between number of hitouts and number of clearances, as seen by the discrepancy above. Don't blame Blake for the lack of clearances we had against the Saints. He held his own against King, but our onballers got smashed in close.

This does illustrate how good our midfielders are... doesn't do anything for Blake's case as you know.

Apart from the actual ruck contests, Blake just didn't follow Sandilands around the ground... totally unaccountable. Sandilands scored a 170+ super coach score, which is utterly ridiculous for him... He never would have scored anywhere near that before. Blake has let the opposition ruckman have an influence in most of the games this year also. Not good enough.

Blake cannot hold up a team ruck position. We have the weakest ruck in the competition without Ottens... simple as that.

 

[Tay29]

As yet I'm still unconvinced about Blake (there are pros and cons), but I couldn't let this ripper past.

That is an absolutely pathetic argument. See the Freo game for the perfect example...

Fremantle = 48 hitouts, 32 clearances
Geelong = 23 hitouts, 36 clearances

If you go by the percentage of how many hitouts are to advantage and lead to clearances, then Sandilands had one of the worst games by a ruckman ever!!

There is only a minor correlation between number of hitouts and number of clearances, as seen by the discrepancy above. Don't blame Blake for the lack of clearances we had against the Saints. He held his own against King, but our onballers got smashed in close.

The pathetic argument is using one stat to make a point. Perhaps you missed the extra stats I listed below. All of them tied together prove Blake was beaten that day by King. Should I post Blake vs Sandilands stats? Btw, how many times did Sandilands take it straight out of the ruck. I don't think those count as hitouts but they do as clearances. Sandilands wasn't pinged once for holding the ball. From memory he only got tackled once as he was getting rid of the ball and it wasn't Blake who tackled him.

Geez, you would think that the only job Blake has is to win the hitouts. That he's exempted for having a presence around the ground or accountability for his opponent.

 

[cat in sydney]

The pathetic argument is using one stat to make a point. Perhaps you missed the extra stats I listed below. All of them tied together prove Blake was beaten that day by King. Should I post Blake vs Sandilands stats? Btw, how many times did Sandilands take it straight out of the ruck. I don't think those count as hitouts but they do as clearances. Sandilands wasn't pinged once for holding the ball. From memory he only got tackled once as he was getting rid of the ball and it wasn't Blake who tackled him.

Geez, you would think that the only job Blake has is to win the hitouts. That he's exempted for having a presence around the ground or accountability for his opponent.

That's why I only picked out that argument on that particular stat. The other stats were well-used, and I agree with you on many points re Blake's poor performance.
I just wanted to point out that I thought you were mis-using the stat in that particular argument.
Apart from that... I agree.

 

[Pivo]

The great forrrest called it weeks ago. Blake is not up to it against a decent ruckman. The mids have to work harder when he rucks. The opposition rucks have a chance to be bog when against blake.

As i stated 4 weeks ago, bring on the mummy and he did not disappoint. He was on the ground, laying tackles, awesome for a first gamer.

I hope he gets time with Otto, will be the next cox of the afl.

enjoy the humble blake pie

*Sits and enjoys the himble pie*

That's fine, Blake had a skocker, I'll wear everything that comes my way for backing him. I can see clearly enough that Blake was poor.

Am I going to jump off him though? No I'm not. So Geelong's 2nd Ruckman got beaten by Freo's 1st ruckman.

If King was still at Geelong the Cats would still had have had the same problem. Blake would have been up against Sandilands because Ottens and King are both injured.

Actually, it wouldn't have been Blake, it would have been Mumford and West.

I'm sure people would say that would have been better.

I say, would it?? I suspect Sandilands would have spanked any and all of them at the weekend.

 

[randyzany]

Friday night confirmed what I had suspected all along, Blake is both mentally and physically weak. I say we cut our losses delist him at the end of the season and put our faith on West and Mumford. I honestly don’t think Blake has what it takes to be a professional footballer.

 

[BigBadCam]

The pathetic argument is using one stat to make a point. Perhaps you missed the extra stats I listed below. All of them tied together prove Blake was beaten that day by King. Should I post Blake vs Sandilands stats? Btw, how many times did Sandilands take it straight out of the ruck. I don't think those count as hitouts but they do as clearances. Sandilands wasn't pinged once for holding the ball. From memory he only got tackled once as he was getting rid of the ball and it wasn't Blake who tackled him.

Geez, you would think that the only job Blake has is to win the hitouts. That he's exempted for having a presence around the ground or accountability for his opponent.

But don't you know? Blake is a tap ruckman and his job is done once he gets the tap. I suppose if he can't get the tap he doesn't have to do anything.

 

[thejester]

Woop-dee-doo he won hitouts by 1 but they mean jack if it's not a hitout to advantage. While I can't find stats for that I remember thinking at the game that King was tapping a lot better. St Kilda also roved Blake's taps better than our own guys. But that is only my opinion. We only lost the hitouts for that game by 6 and yet the below stat obviously backs up my claim;

Clearances
St Kilda: 38
Geelong: 23

As has already been pointed out, Taps =! Clearances.

You would think that if Blake beat King in hitouts, then our clearances would be a lot closer don't you think?

So now you're questioning the actual accuracy of the stat? Bit of a dumb move given you go onto quote plenty more from the same source, don't you think?

Here's some more stats for you;

General Stats
King: 17 (7 kicks, 10 handballs), 3 marks, 6 clearances, 4 1%ers, 2 errors
Blake: 13 (3 kicks, 10 handballs), 2 marks, 2 clearances, 1 1%ers, 6 errors

Courtesy of; http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/game_stats?mid=2008026

I even left the Free Kicks out of it but they don't flatter Blake either.

Again, how many of these came when King was with West?

How about you take your rose coloured glasses off? Blake was beaten that day. It's a fact in all stats except for the hitouts which he won by one.

The hell he was. Opinion throughout the football community was divided...some called it for him, some against, either way it was certainly close; and again, this ignores that St Kilda's second rucks were considerably better than ours.

Oh, I don't know, how about that he is at least competitive. I don't expect him to win each week. In fact I don't expect him to beat the #1 ruck of every other team in this competition at all. But he is less competitive more often than he is.

Rubbish.

Port Adelaide: Well and truley smashed, barely touched it and got 8 hitouts.
Essendon: Tore them up. Dominated in the ruck, 15 possessions, kicked a goal.
Melbourne: 13 possessions, again utterly dominated in the ruck, kicked a goal.
St Kilda: At worse broke even, certainly was competitive.
Sydney: Was beaten, but again was certainly competitive .
Fremantle: Smashed again.

I count that as 3:2, which renders your statement wrong.

Errr... No he's not. That's the argument. He's losing each week and most often than not, badly and that is what most of us here are concerned about. He's not competitive enough. He may get first hands to the ball(currently ranked 5th in total hitouts) but he's not doing a lot with those hitouts. Geelong ranks 9th in clearances.

Which, as has already been shown, is everything to do with the midfielders. And yeah, I'd rather he got his hands to the ball and made a contest in the air then be faced with the kind of situation Collingwood faced in the prelim, or Carlton faced for most of last year.

Mate, go back and look at the vision from the last two weeks. There were several instances of Geelong having a shot for goal from a mark or free kick. Jolly and Sandilands are on the goaline, where the hell was Blake? There was easily enough time for him to be down there if they were. These are his opponents taking uncontested marks in our goal square. Do you expect Mooney or Hawkins to beat their man and then the ruckman? It might be Bomber's gameplan not to send him into the forward 50 and if it is, then it's a big mistake.

Indeed, and watch how much time Blake spends when the opposition are on the attack in the corridor. IMO Bomber has told him to move there and stay there.

I've also seen Blake take it numerous times in the corridor coming out of defence and pass it off to a running midfielder while his opponent was...where? I doubt the club would persist with him if they weren't prepared to trade off his around the ground skills against his work in the ruck.

 

[PoidaCat]

being a bit touchy aren't we? Blakes kicking has improved out of site and quite frankly I think you are wrong. That is just my opinion.

Blakes is just not in the top tier of ruckmen and so the better ones tear him a new one and the ones closer to his ability he is competitive with. That seems to be the pattern so far this year.

A bit touchy? Wtf are you on about?

It was a simple relaxed statement.

Why is there an obsession to compare players? This thread is about Blake. Not Mackie.

 

[forrrestGump]

how about we all agree that blake is the worst player in the gfc 22 starting lineup
you are either a midfielder or you are not, is selwood judged as a second rotation mid, or a mid

blake is a ruckman, and he is not up to it, he loses when the heat is on, and gfc is behind the eightball with him rucking

mummy will be the saviour, and will provide the strength that king did, blake is like street, better off elsewhere

 

[hbk_aus]

how about we all agree that blake is the worst player in the gfc 22 starting lineup
you are either a midfielder or you are not, is selwood judged as a second rotation mid, or a mid

blake is a ruckman, and he is not up to it, he loses when the heat is on, and gfc is behind the eightball with him rucking

mummy will be the saviour, and will provide the strength that king did, blake is like street, better off elsewhere

You mean the strength that King provided in 2003, before his body broke down and he became a liability? ANother spell on the sidelines for him now, what a surprise...

As someone else said, our number 2 ruckman who has been in the system no longer than 3 or 4 years got beaten by Frematles number 1 ruckman who has been in the system for nearly 10 years. What a terrific "supporter" u are Forrest/Woof/Crackers, whatever ur name is...a real credit to the club....

 

[Hinkley29]

how about we all agree that blake is the worst player in the gfc 22 starting lineup
you are either a midfielder or you are not, is selwood judged as a second rotation mid, or a mid

blake is a ruckman, and he is not up to it, he loses when the heat is on, and gfc is behind the eightball with him rucking

mummy will be the saviour, and will provide the strength that king did, blake is like street, better off elsewhere

How about we all agree that this thread (and Forrrest generally) is repetitive and boring.

 

[hbk_aus]

How about we all agree that this thread (and Forrrest generally) is repetitive and boring.

Agree completely, unfortunately Forrest seems to be permanently obsessed with hating Mark Blake, stems from his childhood i fear....

 

[catswhiskers]

Blake is a support ruckman. Thats his job unless we lose our very able first ruckman (Ottens) for a long period. So far in 2008 he has had to take on the first ruck job and has come up short. Who is suprised?

He is proving to be durable and he still has 2 or 3 years to develop to a number one ruckman. I'm still out on this one.

Mumford shows some good signs but is probably 20 or 30 more VFL games away from being good enough to get a regular game if Ottens and Blake are fit.

Blake v Luenberger will tell us a lot.

 

[djlowz]

I'm completely over this thread.

Too many of you are one eyed or just dumb.

Blake is not and I seriously doubt will ever be a good AFL footballer.

To rebut any criticism now -

- I am a Geelong supporter
- I don't have an agenda
- I am being as objective as possible

No more contribution from me.

 

[forrrestGump]

You mean the strength that King provided in 2003, before his body broke down and he became a liability? ANother spell on the sidelines for him now, what a surprise...

As someone else said, our number 2 ruckman who has been in the system no longer than 3 or 4 years got beaten by Frematles number 1 ruckman who has been in the system for nearly 10 years. What a terrific "supporter" u are Forrest/Woof/Crackers, whatever ur name is...a real credit to the club....

is byrnes a really good 10th forward
no
is blake a good ruckman
no

 

[forrrestGump]

Blake is a support ruckman. Thats his job unless we lose our very able first ruckman (Ottens) for a long period. So far in 2008 he has had to take on the first ruck job and has come up short. Who is suprised?

He is proving to be durable and he still has 2 or 3 years to develop to a number one ruckman. I'm still out on this one.

Mumford shows some good signs but is probably 20 or 30 more VFL games away from being good enough to get a regular game if Ottens and Blake are fit.

Blake v Luenberger will tell us a lot.

why because luenberger is a young ruckman with skill